A certain book came out recently about a famous 20th century Jewish leader who was instrumental in shaping much of American Jewry, one way or another. A
tzaddik and
talmid chochom by all accounts, this luminary had views and opinions which were not always very popular nor in congruence with other leaders in the Jewish world. However, as fiercely as this
gadol may have advocated for his beliefs and
halachic rulings, it's well known that he venerated his contemporaries and respected them wholeheartedly.
While this book seeks to lay out the
tzaddik's positions on certain issues in a detailed, carefully explained manner, the biographical accounts are sorely lacking in that same painstaking awareness. There are certain anecdotes in the volume that can - and are - misrepresented in an awful way. I'm actually surprised that I haven't heard anything about calls for this book to be banned, due to the potentially inflammatory material in the book.
In one episode, this
rav is being questioned about why his community's
yeshivot don't emulate the style of the other communities' systems of learning, who seem to enjoy success in the level of scholarship. The
rav replies that the other school of thought's success stems from their focus on
boyche sevoros (an insinuation that they place esteem on pseudo-intellectual dialectics that stem from an egocentric, misinformed understanding) rather than
emes (truth) in learning.
Another story relates how the
rav once commented that no significant
poskim (
halachic authorities/arbiters) ever emerged from the other community's system.
Taken at face value, these stories present this
rav in a very bad light, casting a pall on his legacy. From these stories, one can be led to believe that this
rav was a harsh,
ignorant man, which is the furthest thing from the truth. It's preposterous to claim that this
rav honestly felt this way about the other school's style; while the egocentricity may present itself as an issue, the
rav certainly did not mean to invalidate that style of learning. What may have occurred in that instance was that the
rav was encountering an individual who wouldn't understand the varying reasons, or wouldn't be mollified in any case.
As for the second story, it's obvious that the
rav would not say such a thing seriously. He was contemporaries with some of the greatest
tzaddikim of the past generation: Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Aharon Kotler, the Chazon Ish...he dealt with them constantly and recognized their greatness. I don't claim to know why he made such a statement, but to publish it in this volume only serves to start
machlokes.
The task of conveying nuance in prose is an extremely difficult skill, and one must make sure that the context and tone of the story is fully conveyed. I don't know the author, nor can I claim to understand his motives for publishing this book. Aside from these stories, the book is a very good - and important - read, especially if you would like to gain an insight into what this
rav was encountering and trying to accomplish in those early days of American Jewry. But the author should have been more responsible concerning these glimpses into the
rav's day-to-day dealings; the fact that he can source them to other books means nothing, for the same reason that they are meaningless in his book: context.